 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
3
|
Economy / Service Discussion / StakeMiners.com (Something ain't right)
|
on: May 04, 2015, 03:51:10 AM
|
So unproven really. They lock you in longer term and no easy way to withdrawal "early" without pain. That is just not a good investment for anyone it has been around long enough to prove it can payout. Sounds more like a pyramid / ponzi style system than a longer term investment at this stage. Why not just buy and hold BTC rather than be TRAPPED in this investment? How does this investment actually make an investor money? Explain it in simple terms. You'd be better off punting at Coinarch with the boys there how are professionals. https://www.coinarch.com/They at least are knowledgeable and experienced in securities unlike this fly by night operation. So you lost BTC on this investment? Only because i was impatient. And not really i had bought the btc in a 178 so all i lost was profit on the btc its self. This is better for people who arnt active investors looking for big gains in a short time like im used to. But they said they would repay investments and they paid mine back -30% |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Economy / Service Discussion / BFL updates sans extraneous.
|
on: April 18, 2015, 06:03:54 AM
|
|
Shall we try again?
Will set up guidelines for updating the community in this thread or I might just summarize here everything to date with weekly updates culled from the other BFL threads. Will write more when I get to a normal keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Other / Meta / Guides / Support Threads
|
on: December 27, 2014, 04:07:26 AM
|
|
If something is a support thread it belongs in Mining Support does it not?
There are a number of guides that morph into support and set up threads and they should be moved to Mining Support.
Also can we get the Mods to state clearly what is and isn't HARDWARE appropriate threads?
(This will get moved to Meta)
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / [GUIDE] B's A More Ethical & Trustworthy Miner Sellers Trustworthiness Guide
|
on: September 27, 2014, 01:43:28 AM
|
[Thumbs Up - CONSUMER] Reputable companies that you can expect delivery on time and to spec and will, when they are in error, provide a reasonable and equitable relief to the customers satisfaction. In no particular order of importance.  Bitmaintech Spondoolies Tech Lee Group S5 Antiminer Sales[Thumbs Up - B2B] Bitfury Bitmaintech Spondoolies Tech[Thumbs Up - RETIRED & OTHERS] Twinfury USB miner Project Closed / Retired. One String Miner Some activity on inventory sales but closed or retired. Production of this miner was halted in 2014. Nano Fury Project USB miner Closed / Retired Project. BTCGarden Suspected it has closed as they do not have chips to fabricate new miners. No news on anything new being fabricated. Watching for news. ------------------------------------------- [Thumbs Down - CONSUMER] Disreputable companies that have provided late delivery or not to spec and will not or have yet to provided adequate relief to customers when the company is in error. In no particular order of importance. If the company name has a line through it means it has closed, gone bankrupt or otherwise restricted in doing any business due to financial or legal issues or are most likely a straight up scam.  Technobit Ignoring Emails and Customer Complaints. Some customers have started legal action against technobit. ASICMiner Fraud issues. Friedcat gone missing. Rockminer Substantial issue with fraud could be caught up in the Asicminer Friedcat problems. [Thumbs Down - B2B] NONE[Thumbs Down - RETIRED & OTHERS] KNC Horrible shipping issue and compensation is slow or non-existent. Moving to self mining model non-consumer or B2B CoinTerra Bankrupt Bitmine Being Sued. Black Arrow Hong Kong Police Investigating them for Fraud. AMT- No Longer Shipping Units. See Link VMC - No Longer in Business. Not shipping units. Minersource Suspected of major fraud. Website down. No longer responding to emails. Looks they have run off with customer funds and are no longer refunding or shipping units. nTek - No Longer Shipping Units. See Link Butterfly Labs - FTC limited them to NO pre-sales. Court date pending HashFast - Forced Bankruptcy! See Link Avalon - Avalon chip fraud cost the community millions of dollars in lost development. Do not trust this company, they have changed names and are still overpricing inefficient units and chips. * If you would like to COMPLAIN ANONYMOUSLY about a company feel free to PM me about that company so that your order from that company will not be put in jeopardy. As much as possible we will use posts made by customers with valid complaints posted directly in the hardware and group buy threads. ------------------------------------------- [REASONING] Here is my biased and opinionated guide on purchasing hardware. I am only taking into account which companies have, in my personal assessment, a reputation for delivering on time and to spec without any significant or outstanding customer service issues. This is not a comparative chart it is merely a suggestion for consumers looking for a starting point rather than having to read through all the forums and other media. As the OP I am willing to move companies in or out of either area given sufficient complaints from customers or sufficient rectification of past indiscretions based sufficient CUSTOMER feedback from those who were injured initially. Feel free to discuss my biased and opinionated ratings in this a new moderated thread. I value the opinions of actual customers over the fabricator in every case. If you are here to troll me I will simply ignore you and delete your bs and move on to the topic at hand. This is a BIASED and OPINIONATED review of the companies still shipping units. If a company remains in the Thumbs Up or Down section I will review customer posts over the week and take a snap shot on the weekend and post their opinions with my editorial comments. This snapshot will look for negative posts for those in the Thumbs Down and positive in the Thumbs Up. Should there be significant changes to the company in how they resolve or fail to resolve issues then moving them from their current category could be warranted. Please note there are only two categories so you will need to weigh the merits on your own and determine whether or not you would recommend someone trust a company to deliver on time and to specification and will if in error resolve any and all disputes with their customer base. Let me know if I am missing any fabricators far or wide inside or outside bitcointalk remember NO SCRYPT or ALTCOIN. ONLY SHA256 box makers please. Obviously we will just avoid the outright scams that never shipped a unit right? And please make sure to debate vigorously if you feel I am wrong in my opinion. I will change it based on evidence of customer support for the company is fairly universal. Remember this guide is just the starting point. You can scan the list and agree or disagree and do your own research. I am giving you my best appraisal based on the reading of the bitcointalk forums and other sources. It is not a comparison of companies. It is just meant to give you a starting point especially for new members to source miners. And as always... read the Caveat Emptor by Gmaxwell and learn any purchase of mining equipment is a crapshoot at best. Good Luck hope it helps you avoid the pitfalls when buying miners. Oh here is a great rant about ROI. Some rants about Financial ROI by TheRealSteve. Although this Rant relates to stick or usb miners it almost seems to mirror the current situation for the home miner attempting to buy now. Further to mining there are questions regarding cloud or derivative mining contracts. Please review the thread by DrG here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=739510.msg8355686#msg8355686-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / [GUIDE] Bicknellski's Biased & Opinionated Miner Sellers Trustworthiness Guide
|
on: August 11, 2014, 08:55:05 AM
|
[Thumbs Up] Reputable companies that you can expect delivery on time and to spec and will when they are in error provide reasonable and equitable relief to the customers satisfaction. In no particular order of importance. AAUER1's Twinfury USB Miner The ASICMINER ProjectIASCICMINER (Asicminer Tube Miner Promoted by FriedCat) Ben Turas One String MinerBitfury BitmaintechBTCGarden CanaryInTheMine Group Buy AsicMiner Tube'sCrazyGuy's ASICpuppy Miner Reseller Easy 2 Mine owned by 李培才RockminerSpondoolies Tech VS3's Nanofury USB MinerYiazo------------------------------------------- [Thumbs Down] Unreputable companies that have provided late delivery or not to spec and will not or have yet to provided adequate relief to customers when the company is in error. In no particular order of importance. KNC CoinTerra Butterfly LabsHashFastBitmineTechnobitAvalonBlack ArrowAMTVMCnTekMinersource------------------------------------------- [REASONING] Here is my biased and opinionated guide on purchasing hardware. I am only taking into account which companies have, in my personal assessment, a reputation for delivering on time and to spec without any significant or outstanding customer service issues. This is not a comparative chart it is merely a suggestion for consumers looking for a starting point rather than having to read through all the forums and other media. As the OP I am willing to move companies in or out of either area given sufficient complaints from customers or sufficient rectification of past indiscretions based sufficient CUSTOMER feedback from those who were injured initially. Feel free to discuss my biased and opinionated ratings in this an unmoderated thread. I value the opinions of actual customers over the fabricator in every case. If you are here to troll me I will simply ignore you and move on to the topic at hand. Please note there are only two categories so you will need to weigh the merits on your own and determine whether or not you would recommend someone trust a company to deliver on time and to specification and will if in error resolve any and all disputes with their customer base. Let me know if I am missing any fabricators far or wide inside or outside bitcointalk remember NO SCRYPT or ALTCOIN. ONLY SHA256 box makers please. Obviously we will just avoid the outright scams that never shipped a unit right? And please make sure to debate vigorously if you feel I am wrong in my opinion. I will change it based on evidence of customer support for the company is fairly universal. Remember this guide is just the starting point. You can scan the list and agree or disagree and do your own research. I am giving you my best appraisal based on the reading of the bitcointalk forums and other sources. It is not a comparison of companies. It is just meant to give you a starting point especially for new members to source miners. And as always... read the Caveat Emptor by Gmaxwell and learn any purchase of mining equipment is a crapshoot at best. Good Luck hope it helps you avoid the pitfalls when buying miners. Oh here is a great rant about ROI. Some rants about Financial ROI by TheRealSteve-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Bitcoin / Hardware / Technobit Fucks Us Over Again
|
on: June 11, 2014, 08:36:19 AM
|
Clearly there are a lot of people who have had issues with Technobit and Marto74. This thread is for those who would like to post their complaints so that everyone in the community can see what has transpired without the needless trash and troll or deletion of other threads. This is a safe place to post your complaints and concerns. --------- Note we will be removing troll posts of Marto74 and others and they seem to want to spam post for no other reason than wasting their own time. So no need to react anyone their posts get removed. Let them waste their effort. He has his threads let him play there. If you have a complaint or want to add to the reasons you were screwed over by Technobit feel free to post. We want to make sure we keep the dog and pony show of Marto74 spread out over all his 7 to 10 threads he has, don't worry he will make more. When he reimburses everyone and stops cheating people then he is welcome to make the last post here and then we will lock the thread. Now that Marto74 has wasted better than half a day waiting for the next post... how about we just push the post until tomorrow. The games he is playing add up to lost time for him there are many ways to exact justice. Wasting his time is justice served given how many hours he has taken from his customers. Keep watching and waiting Marto74. We know you can't look away. Keep posting and wasting your minutes, hours, days, weeks and then months on this please, it is well worth it knowing you can't get this time back.--------- Updated List of Injured Parties[Group Buy] Avalon chips Escrow John K May 27, 2013, 18:09:59darkfriend77: Requested 7% fees to be returned. Refuses to pay anything of what he promised out of spite. souspeed: Unkown. Min€r: Unkown. patica: Unkown. hacko.bg: Unkown. mbd4: Unkown. fex: Unkown. joeventura: Requested 7% fees to be returned as well as refund for chips. Refuses to pay anything of what he promised out of spite. souspeed: Unkown. varunsin: Unkown. pajak666: Requested 7% fees to be returned. Still no resolution. Betatester: Unkown. LainZ: Unkown. hookthem: Unkown. jkminkov: Unkown. TECHNOBIT S-HASH minig board and Bitfury October delivery chip distributionadami: Unkown. gcube1305: I have wait 3 month for a board that never came, but i've been refunded. oscurito23: Unkown. wallydz: Unkown. warhawk187: Unkown. vulgartrendkill: Unkown. easynote: Late delivery after many complaints. jammertr: Unkown. basd82: Unkown. whiteEAGLE: Unkown. ccfly: Unkown. streetuff: Unkown. seaandy: Refunded only after repeated hounding and posting in threads. Waited inordinately long for the refund. falinka: Unkown. wuzamarine: Poorly Hashing Unit. Unkown. lancelot6: Failed Unit. Replacement requested. Unkown. Moikka2: Unkown. dplusf: Unkown. cannachris: Unkown. hennessy10009: No refund even though it was requested. Sent completed board with others chips. Had to pester them daily on there forum. btcminer84: Asked for refund. Refund promised. Refund not sent. Miner to be shipped against wishes. No refund or miners sent. Still unresolved. Paratech: Still nothing delivered. No information and just empty promises. [ANN] Technobit HEX8A1 -240 GHs Coincraft A1 board-289braindead: Where is my November order? sacskate: Just trying to give you guys a heads up, he still has lots of refunds and late orders to take care of, with no sense of urgency on his end to do so.Destiffmast: Why should I not be entitled for compensation same way as "older" customers and get a board from first batch?whiteEAGLE: I hope lot of people order this new miner, so Martin can send refund for older undelivered miners.After a long wait and many compliant letters to Marto he was refund through paypal.
"I´m done with him, no more orders." - whiteEAGLE southerngentuk: You told that guy you would refund him. For your own respect just do it. Where all tired of his posts, damn, even he is tired of his posts. But I quite see where he is coming from..Wotan777: Refund and why don't you answer messages?Marto, please answer.Order ref is UICAWGFJDroy7: In the mean time, ignoring the user prevents it from ever being noticed again. dspbuy: Please do not send me the miner now. It is too late. I have made the order more than 4 months ago, so the miner is now completely worthless (due to drop in BTC value and increase of mining difficulty). I would like to have my money back please (you may send me in BTC). Do you realize that this is theft? Do we really need to escalate this? What do I need to do to get my money back? Go to the police?Pug: No delivery yet / order status "Preparation in progress"wunch: I asked a question similar to this question on my order page but have not seen any response for 6 days.grana: I understand everything, but I paid 3 months ago, I no longer have patience!Here now everyone can see who they are Tehnobit and Martin Sirakov ...
I want my money back!
TEHNOBIT IS A SCAMTylerRice: Are you going to be getting units out on time. You was only 1 month late with my Hex16 board so not too bad, But yeah jsut wanted to see if we had a target time for my order (Ref: HTHYKSJQD)opodark: I never received answer for my order 23-11-2013 SZYESJVZP (1/2 week of december) , paid for express delivery and received in 07-01-2014 with standard courier.btcminer84: You told me, the refund need 10 days since 12 of December 2013. So, WHERE is my refund? I never got it.
Order: FESYNGABJ placed on 2013-12-07 13:24:27
Payment: Bank Wireglen123: Hi Marto :
what about my RMA ?
Order Reference IXRPCAXWX -- placed on 2014-04-25
About 20 Days
Send 2 Emails to Office and on this Thread.
Glen |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Bitcoin / Project Development / [New Membership] - The Wasp Project Collective
|
on: June 08, 2014, 04:52:01 AM
|
|
Situation:
The Wasp Project Collective is currently a 50+ member strong working on mining boards for Hammer, AM BE200 chips that will be Novec and Air Cooled prototypes. These boards will lead to the development of Rockerbox, A1, AM BE300 and Pickaxe chip based boards. Our goal is to provide board designs to fabricators or mining operations so that they can upgrade their current systems. We are also working on a pool and cloud mining hosting services which will be available as we complete testing this summer and after that open for public consumption. We are looking to expand membership now in order to secure more funding to complete the prototyping plans we have on the books and move into sales this year. We are looking at adding another 50 members to help us achieve this goal.
Focus:
We require not only members to help raise capital but also to help us support the design and development of the projects as well as sales and marketing of the end designs and services we make available. In order to support this we will reserve 15 memberships for those with software and engineering backgrounds that will be able to work on our projects with the existing teams.
Response:
Membership will reopen on July 1st, 2014, and will remain open until we have reached 50 new members. Membership costs $100 and those fees are held in trust to help facilitate the legal organization and upkeep of the WPC. All monies are accounted for by members of the collective and can be viewed at anytime by the members.
Evaluation:
With this influx of members it is essential that we keep moving our projects forward. With 50 new members we will be able to achieve this and keep the WPC moving forward into new projects beyond the emphasis on mining bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
Economy / Scam Accusations / BFL finally facing class action suit. Anyone else joining in?
|
on: April 09, 2014, 08:35:35 AM
|
http://www.woodlaw.com/sites/default/files/casedocs/2014-04-04%20Complaint.pdfIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
KANSAS CITY DIVISION
KYLE ALEXANDER, and
DYLAN SYMINGTON,
on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
BF LABS INC., a Wyoming corporation,
doing business as BUTTERFLY LABS,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
Case No. _________________
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Kyle Alexander and Dylan Symington (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, and for their claims
against Defendant BF Labs Inc. (“Defendant” or “BFL”) allege, state, and aver to the
Court as follows:
Introduction
1. This lawsuit challenges Defendant’s deceptive and unconscionable
business practices, including: collecting pre-payments for non-existent Bitcoin mining
equipment, failing to ship Bitcoin mining equipment orders for which consumers have
pre-paid, misrepresenting the date such equipment is to ship to customers, and
profiting from Bitcoin mining for Defendant’s own benefit using customers’ equipment
without permission or authorization from customers.
Parties
2. Plaintiff Kyle Alexander is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Tennessee.
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 1 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
2
3. Plaintiff Dylan Symington is a natural person and a citizen of the State of
Maryland.
4. Defendant BF Labs, Inc. is a Wyoming corporation with its principal place
of business at 10770 El Monte St., #101, Leawood, Johnson County, Kansas.
5. Defendant is registered to do business in the State of Kansas and
maintains a registered agent at 112 SW 7th Street, Suite 3C, Topeka, Kansas.
Jurisdiction and Venue
6. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)
because the number of members of the proposed class is not less than 100, the aggregate
amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and at least
one member of the class is a citizen of a different state than Defendant.
7. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
Defendant resides in, is found, has an agent, or transact affairs in this judicial district
and because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims
occurred in this judicial district.
General Allegations
Bitcoin and Bitcoin Mining
8. Defendant advertises itself to the public as a manufacturer of specialized
computer equipment and processors for the task of mining bitcoins.
9. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency created in
2009. Unlike traditional currency, bitcoins are not issued by a government or central
banking authority.1
10. Bitcoin is considered a “cryptocurrency” because cryptography is used to
1 For clarity, Plaintiff uses “Bitcoin” to refer to the digital currency, protocol, or specification; and
“bitcoin” to refer to the individual denomination or unit of the currency.
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 2 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
3
control the creation and transfer of the currency, creating a distributed, decentralized,
and secure medium of exchange.
11. Bitcoins are regularly used to pay debts, purchase goods and services, and
are exchanged for other currencies such as the U.S. dollar, U.K. pound sterling, or euro.
For example on March 19, 2014, one bitcoin could be exchanged for an average of
$613.12.
12. Bitcoins are created by “mining”, a process where “miners” receive
transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins in return for verifying and recording
payments into a public ledger.
13. By design, mining is a computationally intensive process that becomes
more difficult over time.
14. As the difficulty of Bitcoin mining has increased over time, the computer
hardware required to profitably mine has advanced from general purpose CPUs (found
in common desktop computers), high-end GPUs (often found in gaming computers),
FPGAs (field-programmable gate arrays), and ultimately to ASICs (application-specific
integrated circuits) purpose built for performing the calculations necessary for Bitcoin
mining.
The Butterfly Labs Scheme
15. Defendant BF Labs, Inc. was formed July 2011. The majority of stock in
Defendant was and continues to be held or controlled by Mr. Sonny Vleisides.
16. At the time of the formation of Defendant through the present, Mr.
Vleisides was serving a term of supervised release for a felony conviction for Mail Fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, in the United States District Court for the Central
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 3 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
4
District of California.2
17. Defendant using the name “Butterfly Labs” advertised for sale via the
Internet a variety of ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware, stating “Butterfly Labs
manufactures a line of high speed encryption processors for use in bitcoin mining,
research, telecommunication and security applications”.
18. Defendant required consumers to pre-pay by PayPal, bitcoins, or bank
wire transfer the entire amount of an order at the time the order was placed.
19. The Bitcoin mining products advertised by Defendant ranged in price from
$75 to over $20,000.
20. Defendant represented that inventory of its Bitcoin mining products “was
available”.
21. Defendant represented its Bitcoin mining products were “in production”
and “real”.
22. Defendant represented its Bitcoin mining products were “expected to
begin shipping soon”, “shipping [had already] begun”, or products would be “shipping
by the end of the week”.
23. Defendant represented that customers would most likely receive their
equipment within “two months” after ordering, or such equipment “would be shipped in
two months”, or sooner.
2 As a condition of Mr. Vleisides’ supervised release he was prohibited from engaging “as whole or
partial owner, employee or otherwise, in any business involving loan programs, gambling or
gaming activities, telemarketing activities, investment programs or any other business involving
the solicitation of funds or cold-calls to customers without the express approval of the Probation
Officer prior to engagement in such employment.” See Judgment and Commitment Order, Case
No. 2:07-CR-00134-DDP (C.D.Ca. November 15, 2010).
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 4 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
5
24. Defendant represented customers could receive a refund simply by asking
for one, that “it’s not a problem” for a customer to receive a refund, and Defendant could
refund all prepayments “without a problem”.
25. Defendant represented orders would be “shipped according to placement
in the order queue” and for particular products the “first batch of chips” would be “more
than enough for all pre-orders”.
26. Defendant represented that it did not itself mine Bitcoins.
27. Defendant’s representations were false, deceptive, and misleading.
28. Defendant’s representations concealed or omitted a material fact.
29. Defendant’s products did not exist at the time Defendant accepted prepayments.
30. Defendant knew or had reason to know that the products would not ship
on the dates represented to customers.
31. In or about 2012, Defendant purchased a business known as “Eclipse
Mining Consortium”, which operates as a Bitcoin mining pool, an organization which
permits the combination of Bitcoin mining efforts to offer participants faster, yet
smaller, bitcoin distributions than would be achievable if the participants conducted
mining operations on their own.
32. Instead of shipping completed Bitcoin mining hardware to customers after
customers have already paid for the equipment, Defendant has utilized completed
Bitcoin mining hardware to earn mining income for itself under the guise of “testing”
such hardware.
33. This “testing” serves to enrich Defendant at the detriment of its customers
by both denying the customers’ use and benefit of equipment they have already paid for,
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 5 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
6
as well as increasing the overall mining difficulty required to generate future bitcoins.
34. Defendant has collected millions of dollars from customers for pre-orders
of Bitcoin mining hardware.
35. Prior to discontinuing Defendant’s ability to accept payments through the
service, Paypal alone had processed over $11 million dollars in pre-payments for
Defendant’s hardware.
36. Defendant’s representatives admit Defendant has collected over $25
million in customer pre-payments.
37. Defendant has utilized the funds from customer’s pre-payments for:
(a) the paid in full, unfinanced purchase of a residence in Leawood,
Kansas for Mr. Sonny Vleisides;
(b) an automobile for Mr. Sonny Vleisides; and
(c) hundreds of thousands dollars in loans to shareholders of Defendant.
The Representative Plaintiffs’ Orders
Kyle Alexander
38. In June of 2013, Plaintiff Kyle Alexander ordered a Bitcoin mining
machine from Defendant.
39. Plaintiff Kyle Alexander paid $308.00 to Defendant via PayPal for this
equipment.
40. At the time Plaintiff Kyle Alexander ordered and paid for mining
equipment, Defendant represented to Plaintiff Kyle Alexander and other potential
customers that its inventory “was available”, “in production”, available for “shipping
soon”, and/or that “shipping [had already] begun”, and that customers would most
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 6 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
7
likely receive their equipment within “two months” after ordering.
41. In July of 2013, Plaintiff Kyle Alexander contacted Defendant to inquire
about his order and was informed by Defendant that “shipping had begun.”
42. Over the next several months, Plaintiff Kyle Alexander continued to
inquire about his order and was repeatedly informed by Defendant that “shipping had
begun.”
43. In March of 2014, Plaintiff Kyle Alexander again inquired about his order
and Defendant advised him of the “good news” that his order had been changed to
Defendant’s “Mining by the GH” product, which is described on Defendant’s website as
a “product which is not yet live”, which Defendant “expect[s] to launch in April, 2014.”3
44. Plaintiff Kyle Alexander never changed or modified his order and never
gave Defendant permission to use the equipment he ordered to mine bitcoins for itself
or for anyone else.
45. To date, Plaintiff Kyle Alexander has not received any mining equipment
from Defendant.
46. Since Plaintiff Kyle Alexander pre-paid for his order of mining equipment
from Defendant in June of 2013, numerous bitcoins have been mined by others, and the
difficulty of mining new bitcoins has substantially increased over such time.
Dylan Symington
47. On April 3, 2013, Plaintiff Dylan Symington ordered a Bitcoin mining
machine from Defendant.
48. Plaintiff Dylan Symington paid $1,333.00 to Defendant via PayPal for this
3 See Bitcoin Mining Hardware Bitcoin Mining by the GH
(https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage-new-products/1-gh-cloud-hosted-bitcoinhashing-
power.html) retrieved March 31, 2014.
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 7 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
8
equipment.
49. At the time Plaintiff Dylan Symington ordered and paid for mining
equipment, Defendant represented to Plaintiff Dylan Symington and other potential
customers that its inventory “was available”, “in production”, available for “shipping
soon”, and/or that “shipping [had already] begun”, and that customers would most
likely receive their equipment within “two months” after ordering.
50. In September of 2013, Plaintiff Dylan Symington contacted Defendant to
inquire about his order and why he had not yet received any mining equipment from
Defendant.
51. Nearly seven months after receiving payment, on November 1, 2013,
Defendant shipped mining equipment to Plaintiff Dylan Symington.
52. Plaintiff Dylan Symington never gave Defendant permission to use the
equipment he ordered to mine bitcoins for itself or for anyone else.
53. Between the time Plaintiff Dylan Symington pre-paid for his order of
mining equipment from Defendant in April of 2013 and the time he received mining
equipment from Defendant in November of 2013, numerous bitcoins had been mined by
others, and the difficulty of mining new bitcoins had substantially increased over such
time.
Class Action Allegations
54. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of
all persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3). The Plaintiff
Class consists of all persons who pre-paid Defendant for Bitcoin mining equipment.
55. The Plaintiff Class satisfies all of the prerequisites stated in Rule 23(a):
(a) The class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 8 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
9
impractical. Upon information and belief, members of the class
number in the thousands. The number of class members can be
identified from Defendant’s records.
(b) There are questions of law or fact common to the class, such as:
(i) whether or not Defendant accepted pre-paid orders for
Bitcoin mining equipment;
(ii) whether or not such equipment existed at the time
Defendant solicited pre-payments for Bitcoin mining
equipment;
(iii) whether or not Defendant made representations regarding
the time Bitcoin mining equipment would ship to customers;
(iv) whether or not Defendant represented consumers could
receive a refund of their pre-payments;
(v) whether such representations by Defendant were truthful or
misleading;
(vi) whether or not Defendant shipped Bitcoin mining equipment
to customers;
(vii) whether or not Defendant shipped Bitcoin mining equipment
to customers within the time promised;
(viii) whether or not Defendant profited or benefited from using
customer’s Bitcoin mining equipment after such equipment
had been paid for by customers;
(ix) whether or not Defendant’s use of customer’s equipment was
permitted or authorized by customers;
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 9 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
10
(x) whether or not the actions of Defendant violate the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act;
(xi) whether or not Defendant was unjustly enriched by
Defendant’s conduct;
(xii) whether or not Defendant is liable to customers for
conversion related to the use of the Bitcoin mining
equipment; and
(xiii) whether or not Defendant is liable to customers for negligent
misrepresentation related to the sales and advertising of the
Bitcoin mining equipment.
(c) The claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims
of the Plaintiff Class.
(d) The representative plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. The representative
plaintiffs and their counsel have no conflicts of interest with other
class members and have no interests antagonistic to the class. The
representative plaintiffs and their counsel will prosecute the action
vigorously on behalf of the class. The representative plaintiffs’
counsel is experienced in litigating consumer class action cases.
56. Further, the prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the
class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
individual members of the class, which would establish incompatible standards of
conduct for the party opposing the class.
57. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the class
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 10 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
11
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and the class action
is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy, in that:
(a) It is believed that Defendant’s computer, personal, financial, and
business records will enable Plaintiffs to readily identify class
members and establish liability and damages;
(b) Liability and damages can be established for Plaintiffs and the class
with the same or similar common proofs;
(c) Damages for each class member can be calculated in the same or
similar manner;
(d) A class action will result in an orderly and expeditious
administration of claims and will foster economies of time, effort,
and expense;
(e) A class action will contribute to uniformity of decisions concerning
Defendant’s practices; and
(f) As a practical matter, the claims of the class are likely to go
unaddressed absent class certification.
Count I: Violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. §§ 50-626, 50-27, and 50-634
58. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all other Paragraphs of
this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
59. In pertinent part, the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-626
provides:
No supplier shall engage in any deceptive act or practice in
connection with a consumer transaction[.]
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 11 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
12
60. In pertinent part, the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-627
provides:
No supplier shall engage in any unconscionable act or
practice in connection with a consumer transaction.
61. Defendant is a manufacturer, distributor, dealer, seller, lessor, assignor, or
other person who, in the ordinary course of business solicits, engages in or enforces
consumer transactions, and is therefore a “supplier” as defined in K.S.A. § 50-624(l).
62. Plaintiffs, and the proposed class, are individuals, husbands and wives,
sole proprietors, or family partnerships who seek or acquire property or services for
personal, family, household, or business purposes, and are therefore “consumers” as
defined in K.S.A. §50-624(b).
63. The purchase of Bitcoin mining equipment from Defendant constitutes a
“consumer transaction” pursuant to the definition provided in K.S.A. § 50-624(c).
64. The Kansas Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. § 50-634 provides for a
private right of action for “a consumer who is aggrieved by a violation of this act.”
65. Defendant violated K.S.A. § 50-626 by engaging in deceptive acts and
practices in connection with a consumer transaction, including:
(a) knowingly or with reason to know, representing the status of
Defendant’s Bitcoin mining equipment inventory as being available,
in production, available for shipping soon, and/or that shipping has
already begun when, in reality, the status of Defendant BFL’s
mining equipment inventory was not available, not in production,
not available for shipping soon, and/or not already shipping;
(b) willfully using an exaggeration, falsehood, innuendo, or ambiguity
as to a material fact, specifically regarding when shipment of
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 12 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
13
mining equipment would occur and/or that mining equipment
most likely would be shipped within two months or sooner;
(c) willfully failing to state a material fact, specifically that shipment of
mining equipment would likely not occur for over six months,
would never occur, and/or that Defendant BFL intended to keep
and use the mining equipment itself;
(d) offering mining equipment without the intent to sell or ship the
mining equipment; and
(e) offering mining equipment without the intent to supply the
reasonable, expectable public demand and without truthfully
disclosing the limitations.
70. Defendant violated K.S.A. § 50-627 by engaging in unconscionable acts
and practices in connection with a consumer transaction, including:
(a) taking advantage of the inability of the consumer reasonably to
protect the consumer’s interests;
(b) ensuring the consumer was unable to receive a material benefit
from the transaction, specifically that the consumer would pay for
but never receive the mining equipment or that the equipment
would be essentially worthless by the time the consumer actually
received the mining equipment; and
(c) making a misleading statement of opinion on which the consumer
was likely to rely to the consumer’s detriment, specifically that
mining equipment would most likely be shipped in two months or
soon thereafter and/or that shipping had begun.
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 13 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
14
71. To their detriment, Plaintiffs relied on the above statements and omissions
by Defendant when deciding to purchase mining equipment and did in fact purchase
mining equipment from Defendant.
72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deceptive and
unconscionable acts and practices, Plaintiffs were aggrieved and have suffered an
ascertainable loss, including, but not limited to: the purchase price and interest thereon
(if paid in money), the value of the bitcoins paid to Defendant and loss of the use thereof
(if paid in Bitcoin), the loss of use of equipment that Plaintiffs did not receive or did not
receive in a timely manner, the loss of bitcoins which were mined by Defendant using
Plaintiffs’ equipment, the diminution in value of the Bitcoin mining equipment as a
result of Defendant’s conduct, and costs of suit, and attorney’s fees.
73. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages because Defendant
willfully and intentionally violated K.S.A. §§ 50-626 and 50-627.
74. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to K.S.A. §
50-634.
Count II: Unjust Enrichment
75. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all other Paragraphs of
this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
76. A benefit was conferred on Defendant in that Plaintiffs paid money and/or
bitcoins to Defendant.
77. A benefit was conferred on Defendant in that Defendant used Plaintiffs’
mining equipment to mine bitcoins for itself.
78. Defendant accepted and appreciated the money and/or bitcoin payments
from Plaintiffs and had knowledge of such facts.
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 14 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
15
79. Defendant accepted and appreciated the use of Plaintiffs’ mining
equipment and the bitcoins it mined for itself using Plaintiffs’ mining equipment and
had knowledge of such facts.
80. To date, Defendant has retained such benefits in that Defendant has
retained the money and/or bitcoin payments without paying for their value or increased
value over time.
81. To date, Defendant has retained such benefits in that Defendant has
retained the bitcoins it mined for itself using Plaintiffs’ mining equipment without
paying for the use of Plaintiffs’ mining equipment or the value or increased value of
bitcoins mined therefrom over time.
82. Under the circumstances, Defendant’s acceptance and retention of the
money and/or bitcoin payments, and use of Plaintiffs’ mining equipment and retention
of bitcoins mined therefrom, without paying for its value, is inequitable because:
(a) Defendant has either not provided the mining equipment it promised to
ship to Plaintiffs in exchange for the money and/or bitcoin payments or
provided the mining equipment several months after-the-fact;
(b) even if Defendant immediately provided the mining equipment to
Plaintiffs, the equipment is now essentially worthless;
(c) the money and/or bitcoin payments retained by Defendant have increased
in value over time;
(d) Plaintiffs never gave Defendant permission to use their mining equipment
to mine bitcoins for itself or for anyone else;
(e) Defendant has benefitted from the increase in value in money and/or
bitcoin payments over time and has used these payments and the
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 15 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
16
increased value of such payments to purchase houses and cars, to make
loans, and/or to manufacture additional mining equipment for its own use
and benefit;
(f) Defendant has benefitted from using Plaintiffs’ mining equipment to mine
bitcoins for itself and has used such bitcoins and the increased value of
such bitcoins to purchase houses and cars, to make loans, and/or to
manufacture additional mining equipment for its own use and benefit;
(g) Defendant’s retention of the money and/or bitcoin payments over time has
resulted in additional profits from mining that could have been earned by
Plaintiffs had Defendant timely shipped the mining equipment to
Plaintiffs; and
(h) Defendant’s retention of the bitcoins mined using Plaintiffs’ mining
equipment over time has resulted in additional profits that could have
been earned by Plaintiffs had Defendant timely shipped the mining
equipment to Plaintiffs.
83. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s deceptive and
unconscionable acts and practices, Plaintiffs were aggrieved and have suffered an
ascertainable loss, including, but not limited to: the purchase price and interest thereon
(if paid in money), the value of the bitcoins paid to Defendant and loss of the use thereof
(if paid in Bitcoin), the loss of use of equipment that Plaintiffs did not receive or did not
receive in a timely manner, the loss of bitcoins which were mined by Defendant using
Plaintiffs’ equipment, the diminution in value of the Bitcoin mining equipment as a
result of Defendant’s conduct, and costs of suit, and attorney’s fees.
84. The imposition of a constructive trust on the money and bitcoins paid to
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 16 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
17
Defendant is warranted given Defendant’s unlawful conduct described above.
Count III: Negligent Misrepresentation
85. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all other Paragraphs of
this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
86. Defendant, in the course of its business, and in a transaction in which
Defendant had a pecuniary interest, supplied false information to Plaintiffs, including
but not limited to those representations referenced in paragraphs 20-26.
87. Defendant made such representations for the guidance of others in their
business transactions, specifically to encourage Plaintiffs to pay Defendant for Bitcoin
mining equipment.
88. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or
communicating this information.
89. A reasonable business in the same industry and in the same circumstances
exercising due care would have known or should have known that such information was
false as such, Defendant was thereby negligent in communicating such information.
90. To their detriment, Plaintiffs relied on the above statements and omissions
by Defendant when deciding to purchase mining equipment and did in fact pay for
mining equipment from Defendant.
91. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant representations was reasonable because,
at the time, Plaintiffs had no reason to disbelieve Defendant’s representations, were not
aware of Defendant’s inventory, production times, pending orders, or Defendant’s use of
Bitcoin mining equipment for its own benefit.
92. Plaintiffs are within the group of persons for whose benefit the
information was supplied and representations were made by Defendant, specifically to
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 17 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
18
assist Plaintiffs and other potential customers in deciding whether to pay Defendant for
Bitcoin mining equipment.
93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant negligent
misrepresentations, Plaintiffs were aggrieved and have suffered an ascertainable loss,
including, but not limited to: the purchase price and interest thereon (if paid in money),
the value of the bitcoins paid to Defendant and loss of the use thereof (if paid in
Bitcoin), the loss of use of equipment that Plaintiffs did not receive or did not receive in
a timely manner, the loss of bitcoins which were mined by Defendant using Plaintiffs’
equipment, the diminution in value of the Bitcoin mining equipment as a result of
Defendant’s conduct, and costs of suit, and attorney’s fees.
[b]Count IV: Conversion[/b]
94. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all other Paragraphs of
this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
95. Plaintiffs paid money and/or bitcoins to Defendant for the purposes of
purchasing Bitcoin mining equipment consonant with the representations made by
Defendant.
96. Plaintiffs have an ownership interest in such money and/or bitcoins until a
condition is satisfied, i.e., until Defendant provides the Bitcoin mining equipment.
97. Plaintiffs never authorized Defendant to keep and use their money and/or
bitcoins without providing Bitcoin mining equipment or for any purpose other than to
timely manufacture and ship the Bitcoin mining equipment to Plaintiffs.
98. Without authorization, Defendant assumed or exercised the right of
ownership and possession over Plaintiffs’ money and/or bitcoins by using such money
and/or bitcoins for purposes other than timely manufacturing and shipping the Bitcoin
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 18 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
19
mining equipment to Plaintiffs.
99. During Defendant’s exercise of unauthorized ownership and possession
over Plaintiffs’ money and/or bitcoins, Plaintiffs were excluded from exercising their
ownership and possession rights over the money and/or bitcoins.
100. Further, by paying for and purchasing Bitcoin mining equipment from
Defendant, Plaintiffs had an ownership interest in such Bitcoin mining equipment.
101. After Plaintiffs’ Bitcoin mining equipment was manufactured, but before
shipping such Bitcoin mining equipment to Plaintiffs, Defendant used Plaintiffs’ Bitcoin
mining equipment to mine bitcoins for Defendant’s own use, benefit, and enrichment.
102. Plaintiffs never authorized Defendant to keep and use their Bitcoin mining
equipment to develop bitcoins for Defendant’s own use, benefit, and enrichment.
103. Without authorization, Defendant assumed or exercised the right of
ownership and possession over Plaintiffs’ Bitcoin mining equipment by keeping and
using Plaintiffs’ Bitcoin mining equipment to mine bitcoins for Defendant’s own use,
benefit, and enrichment before shipping such equipment to Plaintiffs.
104. During Defendant’s exercise of unauthorized ownership and possession
over Plaintiffs’ Bitcoin mining equipment, Plaintiffs were excluded from exercising their
ownership and possession rights over the Bitcoin mining equipment.
105. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conversion of Plaintiffs’
money, bitcoins, and Bitcoin mining equipment, Plaintiffs were aggrieved and denied
their ownership rights and have suffered an ascertainable loss, including, but not
limited to: the purchase price and interest thereon (if paid in money), the value of the
bitcoins paid to Defendant and loss of the use thereof (if paid in Bitcoin), the loss of use
of equipment that Plaintiffs did not receive or did not receive in a timely manner, the
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 19 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
20
loss of bitcoins which were mined by Defendant using Plaintiffs’ equipment, the
diminution in value of the Bitcoin mining equipment as a result of Defendant’s conduct,
and costs of suit, and attorney’s fees.
[b]WHEREFORE Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all those similarlysituated, pray this Court:[/b]
(a) Enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) that this action is to be
maintained as a class action;
(b) Enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(g) appointing and denominating the
undersigned as class counsel;
(c) Enter an order of restitution and disgorgement, and imposing a
constructive trust as authorized by law and equity;
(d) Enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class against Defendant
awarding damages, interest, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, punitive damages; and all
other relief this Court deems just and proper.
Demand For Trial By Jury
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Designation of Place of Trial
Plaintiffs request Kansas City, Kansas as the place of trial.
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 20 of 21
Alexander, et al. v. BF Labs Inc.
Class Action Complaint
21
Respectfully submitted,
WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
By /s/ Noah K. Wood
Noah K. Wood, KS Bar #23238
noah@woodlaw.com
Ari N. Rodopoulos, USDC-KS #78455
ari@woodlaw.com
1100 Main Street, Suite 1800
Kansas City, MO 64105-5171
T: (816) 256-3582
F: (816) 337-4243
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 2:14-cv-02159 Document 1 Filed 04/04/14 Page 21 of 21
|
|
|
|
|
17
|
Other / Off-topic / Are you going to Inside Bitcoins HK?
|
on: April 09, 2014, 04:39:36 AM
|
Anyone else going? http://www.mediabistro.com/insidebitcoins/hong-kong/?c=ibhkelmbExplore the Business of BitcoinChina is witnessing a bitcoin ‘gold rush’ with a burgeoning demand for the currency in Chinese markets and a bright future ahead. With Hong Kong set to get its first few Bitcoin ATMs and the opening of the first Bitcoin retail store in Hong Kong, it’s no wonder the virtual currency is surging in both popularity and trading volume. Join us June 24-25 for Inside Bitcoins Hong Kong, as we explore how the world’s fastest growing currency is transforming the financial landscape and driving business forward. Fostering a highly interactive, deep-dive learning environment, Inside Bitcoins brings together the leading companies, pioneers and thought leaders in the distributed payment protocol and cryptocurrency space. Packed with keynotes, panels, case studies, research, exhibits and networking opportunities, Inside Bitcoins Hong Kong offers the latest insight and analysis on emerging regulatory issues, FinTech business trends, investment strategies, and more. The program is designed to provide an overview of where the virtual currency industry is today along with the latest business solutions, opportunities, and innovations on the horizon. |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Other / Meta / Those who are Spamming the trust system. Action needs to be taken!
|
on: April 05, 2014, 07:27:26 AM
|
Spam is spam... you can't PM people too much or that is spam but you can ask your "customers" or make phony accounts to post day after day after day on the trust system. 99.99% of these trust ratings are lies and or attempts to further promote BFL products and the "contest" and has little or nothing to do with the stated purpose of the trust system and thus needs to be removed or sanctioned sooner than later our people will abuse it even more. This isn't about an abuse of the system against a single person but really it is to further promote a company using the trust system. If you allow companies to use the Trust system as a form or advertisement then I suspect you are going to see this proliferate. Seems like a cheap and easy way to promote a product and avoid paying for adds on the forum. What is stopping me now from posting a positive trust rating on every member of this site with a link to my favourite product? Or say a warning to everyone not to buy BFL and link Case Name:Meissner v. BF Labs Inc. and this Case Cause:28:1330 Breach of Contract or Case No. 2:13-cv-2617 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED to where legal action has been taken against BFL? I don't suggest for a minute that everyone who hates BFL and the way they have treated this community enmasse post these links tied to BFL , Inaba or BFL_Josh or anyone of the people that are now spamming the trust but here is a list of their names below feel free to do what you want as there are no rules against it obviously. That would be a mess wouldn't it oh boy? And yes this is going to be a new thread in Meta to track each and everyone of these people so that the community is aware of what BFL is doing. It is interesting that even with 100s of customers they can only get a handful to take this deal and many I suspect are just puppet accounts they created here in Bitcointalk given that most are newbie accounts. Now I am doing this not for me I don't give a rats ass about the trust system, or my own reputation here in BTCtalk land as I am pretty certain anyone of merit understands who I am and what I have done and if they don't they will see how I will treat the community in the coming months and years. I do worry Dogie's rep and I think that BFL has certainly made an enemy out of someone that nearly all of us in the mining community recognize as upstanding and helpful. Here is my pledge that I will spend the required time to rectify that and make sure that anyone messing with his trust rating is sanctioned properly by the trust system. However the mods need to do more to protect people who are being helpful. It is beyond me why this forum would not stand up for someone like this and protect them against this sort of thing, but that is not in their job description. Spam is. This is spam. These are the spammers do something. This list will be updated as BFL adds more puppet accounts. Spammers as of 26/05/2014: BFL InabaBFL_JoshdmeljAnonymailerCasseycriminalbenPry4ufsb4000Pokokohua!securoFlyeyeBTCJackstevenmicah JoRoidxalphabetacanarymonsterblitzhuj Rapturosopowersirj NorthlanderMelMan2002elviselvis101DOGEDAMAN1PhilWraysmVh50fsbleopard2Serjstermkslim MelMan2002 NEWEST SPAMMER! Recanted SpammersRaw-Hhardhouseinc NEW RECANTED SPAMMER I wouldn't ask people to simply cut and paste this into the trust ratings of those who are trying to spam the trust system as a protest to BFL and to show the mods that spam is really not what the trust system is for. Although technically this is well within the trust rating system to post warnings like this against people who are scammers. Then again it could be easily resolved if the moderators take up the stand that this is spam and put all these accounts on notice. Note that Martin Meissner was scammed for $62,000 USD approx 140 BTC at today's rates. BTC Market RatesMost know that Martin's is not an isolated case but a good one to use to illustrate what BFL is really is all about. Are we now allowing the trust system to be an advertorial sytem. At what point does it become spam. I would suggest it has passed that mark the day someone posted 2x on the same "trust" aspect ie in terms of the BFL "contest". At this point you can't say this isn't spam and it should be addressed. This isn't about whether the trust system or the default trust is working or not. We have moved into vandalism / spam / graffiti / advertisements and that is an issue that has to be addressed. BFL is more than attempting to game the trust system they are using it to promote their own products. If you do nothing then it is a green light for everyone to do the same. Good luck policing the system. I suggest a BAN on those doing this will right the ship quickly.  Join the CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT Follow the Reference Link. The Wood Law Firm LLC announced today that customers from across the country have joined together and filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the sales and advertising practices of Butterfly Labs. The lawsuit against BF Labs, Inc., which does business as Butterfly Labs seeks compensation for customers who pre-paid Butterfly Labs for Bitcoin mining equipment and who did not receive the equipment they paid for, or received the equipment far after Butterfly Labs represented the equipment would ship. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency. Bitcoins are created by "mining", a process where miners receive transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins in return for verifying and recording payments into a public ledger. By design, mining is a computationally intensive process which today requires purpose-built computer chips to be cost effective. The complaint, filed in the United State District Court for the District of Kansas located in Kansas City, seeks to recover the pre-payments made to Butterfly Labs and the losses customers sustained due to Butterfly Labs' conduct. The lawsuit alleges Butterfly Labs required customers to pre-pay for orders of ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware, and used portions of customer pre-payments to make loans to shareholders and purchase a house and automobile for a shareholder. Because the computational difficulty of Bitcoin mining increases over time, by the time some consumers finally received their equipment, the equipment had become worthless because mining with the equipment was no longer cost effective. "Bitcoin is an exciting and promising new technology. Unfortunately this also makes it an attractive area for people running scams and frauds," stated attorney Noah Wood one of the lawyers for the customers. "Stopping the bad actors and staying vigilant against consumer fraud is absolutely necessary for the successful development of the Bitcoin ecosystem." According to the complaint, Butterfly Labs may have collected over $25 million in customer pre-payments. The lawsuit also alleges Butterfly Labs, despite telling customers that Butterfly Labs did not mine bitcoins itself, used equipment customers had already paid for to earn mining income for itself under the guise of "testing" such hardware. The complaint states this "testing" served "to enrich Defendant at the detriment of its customers by both denying the customers' use and benefit of the equipment they have already paid for, as well as increasing the overall mining difficulty required to generate future bitcoins." The case is Alexander et al. v. BF Labs, Inc., Case Number 2:14-CV-02159 (D. Kansas). The customers are represented by Noah Wood and Ari Rodopoulos. A copy of the lawsuit and further information is available from the Wood Law Firm, LLC at www.woodlaw.com/cases/butterfly-labs-and-bf-labs-inc-bitcoin-miners. |
|
|
|
|
20
|
Other / Off-topic / Did BFL sell their customers info?
|
on: November 09, 2013, 04:16:19 AM
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=325638.0Unless paying a telemarketer, calling all their former and current customers, is not considered a third party, I stand corrected. Quote Our Privacy Promise We do not sell information about you to a third party. We do not share your information with anyone else for their marketing purposes. We use your personal information only to help maintain the business relationship you have with us. ~TMIBTCITW Given PG is gagged because of a bet. (PG SELF IMPOSED CENSORSHIP BECAUSE BFL DOESN'T WANT PG RIPPING THEM A NEW ONE FOR EVERY ERROR) Given Inaba / Josh has yet to pay off a number of bets why anyone would trust him is beyond me. Reference: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=191600.0Continue the speculation here. |
|
|
|
|
